Yankees - Signed Teixeira
New York Yankees - Signed 1B Mark Teixeira to an 8-year, $180 million contract.

I'm not a Yankees fan and I can't envision a scenario in which I'd root for the team.

However, the strongest advocates of a salary cap, the ones ranting about salaries in light of the economy, are full of hot air. And something else, but the site nanny won't let me say it.

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.

For decades, wonks, wags, and wigs have told us that player salaries drive upward ticket prices and that arguments about supply and demand are theoretical constructs for an imaginary world. But in the real world, during a time in which the player's slice of the pie has dropped tremendously (a $400 million loss of the pie in 2008 alone, relative to 2003), ticket prices have continued to gone up unabated. Just as expected, savings from limiting the salaries of those mean old players have been filtered directly into the pockets of owners. Owners who cry poverty and get welfare stadiums. Republicans talked about welfare queens 15 years ago, but it would take thousands of so-called queens driving around in taxpayer Cadillacs to match some of the true members of that category. Take Jeff Loria, who pockets revenue-sharing money and then turns around and gets an additional honeypot in the form an apparently imminent fancy-new stadium. If MLB owners were in charge of the TARP funds, the $700 billion would already be completely gone and the sycophantic media, ever-hungry for prestige, quotes, and free pastrami on rye, would blame it on pay raises for local janitorial staff.

Now, to the Yankees. I've been stalling on saying nice things about the team, but I guess I've got to bite the bullet and get it over with. The Yankees have a mindset that is good for baseball and the US would be better off if more companies possessed the Yankee mindset.

The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

Now, what about the Yankee mindset? The Steinbrenners aren't anywhere near as rich or as liquid as some other owners in baseball such as Carl Pohlad of the Twins. The difference is that the Steinbrenners have always invested in their team, always striven to put the best product possible out on the field. The Yankees have certainly made some terrible trades, especially when King George was hands-on the most, but they were done with the motive of making the team better. Yes, the Yankees got a huge, undeserved payday from the locals for their stadium, like most teams in baseball did, but it's a mitigating factor that they're actually plowing those funds back into the on-field product. And the team never threatened to not compete until they got their sweet check. Perhaps a small difference, but I see it as a good bit more ethical than Kevin McClatchy demanding taxpayer moneys to help the Pirates compete and then turn around and use all the money to fund his failing media empire.

Now, what about Mark Teixeira? The benefits of Teixeira are pretty obvious, he's a fine defensive 1B who hits very well and should be a relatively safe bet for the Yankees over the course of his contract. He's not A-Rod or peak Manny, but Teixeira's a very good player and while he may only be a bit above-average by his mid-30s, $22.5 million likely won't be exorbitant for an average player on the FA market in 2016.

Arte Moreno may get to have the personal satisfaction of feeling like the injured party, but this is what Tex was going to make when the Angels acquired him and if they weren't going to play serious ball, the Angels should never have done the Kotchman trade. Perhaps they'll change the rules of baseball during the season and allow moral victories to win games, minimizing the damage that the team offense, 10th in the AL in runs with a huge couple of months of Teixeira thrown in, can do.

Baseball needs fewer cheap worthless owners than a salary cap. They need to contract at least 4 teams to improve the sport.

homestarunner93

12-24-2008, 01:34 PM

Baseball needs fewer cheap worthless owners than a salary cap. They need to contract at least 4 teams to improve the sport.

Contracting 4 teams is dumb, but two is smarter. That way you'll have even divisions and whatnot.

mark1125

12-24-2008, 01:47 PM

If they do a cap for mx payroll, there needs to be a minimum as well.

IBleedPurple

12-24-2008, 04:08 PM

Baseball is not a big enough sport for all of the owners to open up the bank vault and dump the money. Until there is a cap, it will be the same teams competing every year, with one or two teams rotating in/out of the playoffs due to a good season.

No cap=Bad baseball. It is getting ridiculous.

Tekmosis

12-24-2008, 04:10 PM

Baseball doesn't need owners who sit on their wallets but unfortunatley, about 25 teams do.

Super.

12-24-2008, 04:13 PM

Baseball doesn't need owners who sit on their wallets but unfortunatley, about 25 teams do.

thats the main thing, but they dont need teams spending over $400 million in a bit over a few weeks too

there needs to be a happy median but unfortunatly there isnt so we just need to get over it

Mets4Life101

12-24-2008, 04:36 PM

why salary cap? yankees been spending big money for years and they havent won since 2000, a stacked team doesnt always win

Plenty of other U.S. businesses have the same mindset as the Yankees. Look at ENRON, the banking and loans industry, etc.

vick27m

12-24-2008, 04:46 PM

they need to put something in line you should not be able to spend 400 and some million dollars in one offseason

Brew Crew

12-24-2008, 04:50 PM

they need to put something in line you should not be able to spend 400 and some million dollars in one offseason

So how about spending nearly $300 million like the Cubs did in 07?

Mantle13

12-24-2008, 04:57 PM

It isn't just about cheap owners, although they certainly are a factor. Owners are typically smart business types who have purchased a franchise to turn a profit. This is not a 17 game football season;where 12 teams make the playoffs. It's a grueling season where injuries are almost guarenteed and one key loss can ruin a teams hopes for the whole year. Furthermore, if your in a small Market like Kansas city there's less people to attend games and help the club turn a profit. After all that if the Yankees payroll last year doesn't even guarentee a playoff birth due to limited spots, it's not a prudent financial decision. Of course winning helps... The rays obviously sold more tickets by winning last year; but, not sure you want to hedge your bets on trying to catch lightning in a bottle every year.

LeoGetz

12-24-2008, 05:13 PM

So how about spending nearly $300 million like the Cubs did in 07?

That is completely different and I don't mean by $100MM. There is a very logical and simple explanation as to the difference between the two, first off hey its snowing outside...

MelkyNYY

12-24-2008, 05:27 PM

WE WOULD NOT have been able to spend 65 million on 4 players if 80 million didnt come off the books.

Do any of you understand that we are UNDER our payroll from last year?

Gigantes4Life

12-24-2008, 06:18 PM

I think that's the worst part of it.

MelkyNYY

12-24-2008, 06:35 PM

I think that's the worst part of it.

That your owner has more money than ours but refuses to spend it?

Is that the worst part of it? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLVCGyrww_M)

Apophis

12-24-2008, 07:18 PM

WE WOULD NOT have been able to spend 65 million on 4 players if 80 million didnt come off the books.

Do any of you understand that we are UNDER our payroll from last year?

and thats the thing people are not understanding.. They keep looking at 400 million.. 400 million.. the economy.. .400 million.... the economy...400 million is more than what my team is worth... 400 million and so on and so on...

and the owners that cry foul alot are the ones who are very cheap...... but do not hesitate to pocket that money the yanks bring their team...

HipSlappyJoe

12-24-2008, 07:25 PM

1. People do not realize that the Yankees got rid of a ton of payroll. They were overpaying guys like Giambi, Mussina, Pettite, and paying off A-Rod's old deal, plus maybe Sheffield as well.

2. Baseball should adopt a minimum for how much a team needs to spend. Teams who use revenue sharing only to profit and not to improve their team or ballpark should be able to get some sort of punishment. The money from luxury taxes are supposed to be used to help small market teams.

3. Baseball should also adopt a maximum for how much a team should spend and cap players salaries. In our current economic conditions, the prices of players shouldnt skyrocket because of one franchise. every 1st basemen's salary will go up because of texeira's new deal and so will every SP salary. their needs to be a cap to prevent that from happening so small market teams do not lose star players because teams will dramaticly overbid.

WillRain

12-24-2008, 07:57 PM

saying "spent $400 million" just confuses the issue. they didn't lay out all those funds in one day or even one year.

As the Yankee fan says, they are - so far - under last year's annual payroll.

As for the cap, I don't think you can have a ceiling without a floor and you can't have either one without the sort of profit sharing you see in the NFL.

The league has to realize they are not 30 seperate businesses, they are ONE business in 30 separate locations. There might be some marginal revenues that stay local but for the most part, there should be very little difference in the operating capital (or profits) of the Rays and the Yankees.

But what comes with that is the requirement that the revenues that are shared are spent to put a quality team on the field. That can be with a kick *** minor league system or expensive major league players or some mix of both....

But if there is going to be a cap, there has to be a fllor, and if there's a floor, there has to be real profit sharing and if there is that, then there has to be measures to insure a crooked owner doesn't milk the legue for personal profit at the expense of the team.

they can all make out like kings if they will work together...and they will put a better product on the field...and the players will make more money too.

CAIN=FUTURE

12-24-2008, 08:00 PM

why salary cap? yankees been spending big money for years and they havent won since 2000, a stacked team doesnt always win

Only 6 teams have won the WS since 2000. Whats your point?

YankeeFan28

12-24-2008, 08:11 PM

Some baseball teams need a new business plan. The fact that the Dodgers aren't second in payroll is sickening. Afterall, they're a huge city, almost as big as NY and hypothetically only have one team (Angels are still in Anaheim no matter what their name says) in their city. Teams like the Marlins are a huge epic fail in a city like Miami. I'm not saying they should be a huge market, but they damn well should be a middle of the pack market with the potential they have going on there. Same with the Blue Jays. They have the potential to draw 4M fans and be close to at least Boston. Yet, where are they. It's unfortunate Rogers died because he understood that.

Boston is the model organization. A city of what? 600K? and they are a huge organization.

Many teams just need better business plans but it's easier blaming it on other teams.

CAIN=FUTURE

12-24-2008, 08:31 PM

Some baseball teams need a new business plan. The fact that the Dodgers aren't second in payroll is sickening. Afterall, they're a huge city, almost as big as NY and hypothetically only have one team (Angels are still in Anaheim no matter what their name says) in their city. Teams like the Marlins are a huge epic fail in a city like Miami. I'm not saying they should be a huge market, but they damn well should be a middle of the pack market with the potential they have going on there. Same with the Blue Jays. They have the potential to draw 4M fans and be close to at least Boston. Yet, where are they. It's unfortunate Rogers died because he understood that.

Boston is the model organization. A city of what? 600K? and they are a huge organization.

Many teams just need better business plans but it's easier blaming it on other teams.

This is all true, but there is no reason a team should be allowed to spend like the Yankees. The Yankees spending sickens me, but organizations like the Marlins, A's, and the Pirates do so more. There needs to be a cap, as well as a minimum.

raiderfanatic08

12-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Simply put the Yanks put out the dough, and did overpay people like Pavano. But the small markets like Marlins and TB are because people do not want to go to see baseball there they would rather be on the beach. Think of the location of small market teams. Oh by the way small market teams are contenders. For example, Phi, TB, Fla a coupe years ago...so on and so forth. Owners need to pony up, until then Steinbrenner will try and buy a championship...Go Yanks

michaelb2254

12-24-2008, 08:42 PM

A salary cap would be bad in my opinion. Let's look at the Rays for example, they have built a hell of a team through there own system. Now when all these guys are commanding big salaries, a cap would be somewhat a punishment. They would have to let some players go, what i'm saying is a cap would be a punishment for developing superior talent.

hotpotato1092

12-24-2008, 08:46 PM

ok to those of you calling owners cheap: that's not true at all. The yankees are able to spend so much money because they generate so much income. The YES network alone brings them enough money to pay for the entire Marlins roster 3 or 4 times over. The Mets have a similar situation with SNY. If the owner of the marlins or twins spent 200 million on players then they would lose so much money that the owners would have to sell their teams. Baseball is a business, you can't spend money if you aren't making money. Nobody shows up to Marlins games so they can't spend money on players. The twins make nothing in TV revenue so they can't either. If you have a billion dollars and you spend 200 million on players alone, you're losing 30 or 40 million per year if you're in a small market like Minnesota. That means you'd lose 20% of your net worth in 5 years, nobody wants to do that. The reason the redsoxs and yankees of the world can spend so much is that they make so much more than other teams. Revenue sharing in baseball isn't big enough for teams to spend equally, in the NFL almost 90% of revenues are shared so teams all make almost the same amount of money, meaning they can all spend the same amount. When the Yankees make 100 million from their cable network and the twins make 5 how can they be expected to spend as much as the yankees. Owners aren't cheap, they just don't bring in enough money to justify signing such high priced free agents. They'd lose way too much money, baseball is a business after all. If all teams made money than all teams could spend money, but not all teams make money. If revenue sharing was as big in baseball as football than all teams could spend equally, but it isn't so we'll always have the huge disparity between the big 6 (yankees, mets, redsox, cubs, dodgers, angels) and everyone else. Is it fair? No, but it's reality.

YankeeFan28

12-24-2008, 09:01 PM

This is all true, but there is no reason a team should be allowed to spend like the Yankees. The Yankees spending sickens me, but organizations like the Marlins, A's, and the Pirates do so more. There needs to be a cap, as well as a minimum.

You sure as a Giants fan you want a cap? When and if the Giants put a presentable and winning team on the field, the Giants IMO will be making more money then their big market rival (LAD). They have a fairly new stadium and a new TV network. When the Giants put a winning team together, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to make money into more money. Something the Dodgers won't be able to do until 2014, since they are locked into a TV deal till then.

I can understand the Pirates, Royals, etc. But you cannot include the Marlins. They have a failed business plan in a huge market potential.

A salary cap is nice and dandy, but it don't mean **** until baseball acts as 1 organization, not like 30 separate entities, and owners don't look to profit most of the revenue they receive.

arkanian215

12-24-2008, 09:09 PM

Baseball needs fewer cheap worthless owners than a salary cap. They need to contract at least 4 teams to improve the sport.

cheap? are you kidding me? 10 mil for a player isnt cheap. 5 mil for a player isnt cheap. id say the players should quit being greedy. come on you cant feed your family with 5 mil really? are you joking? jesus christ.

YankeeFan28

12-24-2008, 09:14 PM

cheap? are you kidding me? 10 mil for a player isnt cheap. 5 mil for a player isnt cheap. id say the players should quit being greedy. come on you cant feed your family with 5 mil really? are you joking? jesus christ.

Please read the opening post. Look at the percentages. If anything, players SHOULD be asking for a bigger piece of the pie.

MelkyNYY

12-24-2008, 09:24 PM

YF28 basically said it all. It is a damn shame that this is even a topic of discussion. I welcome a Salary Cap only because it would mean that the Yankees owners would pocket all their revenue instead of paying for the Marlins' owner's yachts. When a team gets more than 17 million dollar in revenue sharing and STILL has a 17 million dollar payroll, that is sad.

But no. ESPN will always twist it as the Marlins can't compete. Like the Yankees are the big bad evil empire and the Red Sox are the blue collar representation of America. They will have most of the ignorant public BELIEVING that the more you spend, the worse you are. ********. Teams like the Yankees SAVE baseball from turning into the NHL. Look at how successful soccer is worldwide, there is no salary cap in Soccer. The Owners invest as much into their clubs as possible. You have owners not afraid to spend because they all have the same business model as the Yankees. Spend, Spend, Spend then Charge, Charge, Charge. The more they win the more they can charge.

I look at the Premiership, Serie A, the Spanish Leagues and hope that the MLB turns into anything remotely as successful. With owners who truly don't care about anything other than winning, and they invest as much money as possible into their clubs.

Stop whining about how much money the Yankees spend, and start complaining to your Front Office on why they won't spend more.

fishfan79

12-24-2008, 09:39 PM

110 million max, 50 million floor seems right to me

fishfan79

12-24-2008, 09:40 PM

Please read the opening post. Look at the percentages. If anything, players SHOULD be asking for a bigger piece of the pie.

no if anything the owners should be charging LESS for the product on the field

MelkyNYY

12-24-2008, 09:48 PM

no if anything the owners should be charging LESS for the product on the field

With a 50 million floor the Marlins would not exist...it would take another 33 million.

Again, this is an idiotic statement. If we charge less for the product on the field, Baseball as an industry slowly dwindles. Hence the NHL, and even the NBA. Baseball is played in Stadiums, like Soccer. I use Soccer as a prime example because it is one of the only sports that has no salary cap and thrives more than ever (Euro Soccer).

The more money you spend on something the better it will be. Simple. If we start charging less and paying players less, baseball will suffer. Period.

I'm sorry your owner refuses to spend more than 20 million, but that is unfortunate. Complain to the better business Bureau.

Abhtrainer

12-24-2008, 10:04 PM

WE WOULD NOT have been able to spend 65 million on 4 players if 80 million didnt come off the books.

Do any of you understand that we are UNDER our payroll from last year?
The haters will never be able to understand that because it is the YANKEES. The Yankees are damned if they do or damned if they don't. Can't even try to put a winning product on the field without anybody complaining. And yes it's laughable because they are under payroll from last year and we are still scorned and ridiculed. OH WELL! GO YANKS!

raiderfanatic08

12-24-2008, 10:09 PM

The haters will never be able to understand that because it is the YANKEES. The Yankees are damned if they do or damned if they don't. Can't even try to put a winning product on the field without anybody complaining. And yes it's laughable because they are under payroll from last year and we are still scorned and ridiculed. OH WELL! GO YANKS!

Agreed Bro...and it is not like we dont develop Farm System talent either (Cano, Hughes, Joba, and a couple others...)

Brew Crew

12-24-2008, 11:48 PM

That is completely different and I don't mean by $100MM. There is a very logical and simple explanation as to the difference between the two, first off hey its snowing outside...

I hate snow, and right now I couldn't walk anywhere that isn't a sidewalk or road that I wouldn't basically get stuck in.

tomno00

12-24-2008, 11:55 PM

notice how you wont find a single yankee fan in favor of a salary cap.... i wonder why

Lady's Man

12-25-2008, 12:03 AM

well its pretty much the rich elite that go yankee games... or at least get good seats..

many compaines also buy season tickets for their employees. Its at the point now where its going to cost 200 a head just to get in the lower level, and thats not including parking or food. And this is where the yankees have the advantage. The city actually has a big enough population to get idiots to actually pay that price and thus, they have no need to lower their prices. Its called price gauging and in all other businesses, its regulated....hmm

BeantownBill

12-25-2008, 12:24 AM

Do any of you understand that we are UNDER our payroll from last year?

You're actually roughly 2 million over last year.

jamool26

12-25-2008, 12:54 AM

People who say there has to be a minimum are quite ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that if a team can't earn enough money to put a competitive team on the field that team should not exist to begin with. MLB was stupid for expanding and even more stupid for expanding by adding teams in areas that will not support their teams. There should be no teams in Florida and other places where they can't even sell out playoff games. There should be a cap, but there should also be less teams to spread the talent around more evenly. There are too many players in the majors that don't deserve to be there in the first place, let alone making millions of dollars.

Drucifer

12-25-2008, 01:26 AM

I'm a retired union man. I'm against salary cap. A worker should be paid what the marketplace can bare.

tomno00

12-25-2008, 01:28 AM

I'm a retired union man. I'm against salary cap. A worker should be paid what the marketplace can bare.

this makes no sense at all. unions fight to protect the rights of workers. without a union you probably wouldnt be making much more than min wage.

Muttman73

12-25-2008, 01:40 AM

Yes

LeBrowns

12-25-2008, 02:30 AM

WE WOULD NOT have been able to spend 65 million on 4 players if 80 million didnt come off the books.

Do any of you understand that we are UNDER our payroll from last year?

Yes but that doesn't deny the fact the Yankees were one of the few, if not the only team to bring in all top three gree agents.

hotpotato1092

12-25-2008, 04:07 AM

Yea no yankee fans want a cap, I'm a mets fan and I want one and I'm in a very small minority. Oh well, I guess as long as your team is winning the welfare of the sport doesn't matter right yankee fans?

MelkyNYY

12-25-2008, 04:09 AM

Yes but that doesn't deny the fact the Yankees were one of the few, if not the only team to bring in all top three gree agents.

Who is denying it? My point is that we LOST 80 million dollars worth in players. We LOST Giambi, Abreu, Mussina, Pettite, Pavano.

Because of this, we were able to sign the top 3 free agents.

If there was a salary cap, we would be able to do the SAME GOD DAMN thing.

MelkyNYY

12-25-2008, 04:13 AM

Yea no yankee fans want a cap, I'm a mets fan and I want one and I'm in a very small minority. Oh well, I guess as long as your team is winning the welfare of the sport doesn't matter right yankee fans?

No baseball fan wants a cap. Only envious people who do not understand Baseball's economic system want a cap. Do you enjoy Citi Field? Do you think the Mets paid for it themselves along with the NY Tax Payers? you don't think revenue sharing had anything to do with it? You don't think the Yankees exposure had anything to do with the growing popularity of baseball and hence all these new stadiums popping up?

Do you know that the bottom 4 teams in the Majors would have to be removed without revenue sharing and with a cap?

Did you know that the Marlins get more than 17 million in revenue sharing and only have a 17 million dollar payroll?

Do you know Steinbrenners aren't even the Top 10 wealthiest owners in baseball? And that any other owner could theoretically outspend them?

Did you know that the NBA and NHL salary caps handicap teams to the point where if they make one mistake, it could deem a franchise irrelevant for YEARS?

Did you know that the MLB has more parity in its winners than the NFL?

Did you know that MLB is the fastest growing Sport in the United State?

Did you know that it is because MLB runs on a capitalist system?

Did you know the NFL teams with more revenue outbid other teams on FA with signing bonuses that aren't capped?

Did you know without a salary cap there would be no revenue sharing, and the Yankees would potentially be even WEALTHIER and be able to just offer large signing bonuses?

Did you know that a Salary Cap would cause player salaries to drop, and probably cause a strike?

Do you know that salary caps in other sports are dependent on the leaugue's revenue in comparison with the number of players in the league? Meaning Players would get paid MORE. They just don't pick a number out of their ***** and say "Hey the cap is 150 million", NO the MLBPA will demand players get a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have, and the cap would be close to 300 million.

It would go something like This

Total Revenue/total number of players a team (25) = average salary per player x 25 = total cap.

Baseballs Revenue was ridiculous this past year. The Salary Cap would be well over 200 million. Or are you one of the fans that thinks the other sports just pick a random number. It is dependent on Revenue, or the MLBPA would not go for it.

Learn your facts, stop the crying.

hotpotato1092

12-25-2008, 05:05 AM

No baseball fan wants a cap. Only envious people who do not understand Baseball's economic system want a cap. Do you enjoy Citi Field? Do you think the Mets paid for it themselves along with the NY Tax Payers? you don't think revenue sharing had anything to do with it? You don't think the Yankees exposure had anything to do with the growing popularity of baseball and hence all these new stadiums popping up?

Do you know that the bottom 4 teams in the Majors would have to be removed without revenue sharing and with a cap?

Did you know that the Marlins get more than 17 million in revenue sharing and only have a 17 million dollar payroll?

Do you know Steinbrenners aren't even the Top 10 wealthiest owners in baseball? And that any other owner could theoretically outspend them?

Did you know that the NBA and NHL salary caps handicap teams to the point where if they make one mistake, it could deem a franchise irrelevant for YEARS?

Did you know that the MLB has more parity in its winners than the NFL?

Did you know that MLB is the fastest growing Sport in the United State?

Did you know that it is because MLB runs on a capitalist system?

Did you know the NFL teams with more revenue outbid other teams on FA with signing bonuses that aren't capped?

Did you know without a salary cap there would be no revenue sharing, and the Yankees would potentially be even WEALTHIER and be able to just offer large signing bonuses?

Did you know that a Salary Cap would cause player salaries to drop, and probably cause a strike?

Do you know that salary caps in other sports are dependent on the leaugue's revenue in comparison with the number of players in the league? Meaning Players would get paid MORE. They just don't pick a number out of their ***** and say "Hey the cap is 150 million", NO the MLBPA will demand players get a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have, and the cap would be close to 300 million.

It would go something like This

Total Revenue/total number of players a team (25) = average salary per player x 25 = total cap.

Baseballs Revenue was ridiculous this past year. The Salary Cap would be well over 200 million. Or are you one of the fans that thinks the other sports just pick a random number. It is dependent on Revenue, or the MLBPA would not go for it.

Learn your facts, stop the crying.

Did you know that the wealth of the owner means almost NOTHING when a team determines how much it spends? David Glass (owner of the royals) for example is richer than the steinbrenners, but the royals don't make money. If he spent 200 million he'd be losing 50 million per year, how could he justify that? The Yankees can spend so much because they make so much, the YES network makes them more money than most teams make total. In the NFL, almost 90% of revenues are shared, meaning every team makes an almost equal amount of money and can therefore spend an almost equal amount of money, baseball puts nowhere near that much into revenue sharing. Small market owners can't spend that kind of money because their teams aren't making enough to pay the players that much. How would you feel if you were a small market fan and could only compete in 2-3 year intervels than go back to rebuilding for 5 years? Baseball has more parity in it's champions, but has nowhere near the amount of parity in playoff spots. In the NFL you have 25% of playoff spots going to teams consistently there, the colts, pats and seahawks. In baseball you have the yankees, redsox and angels monopolizing three of the four playoff spots in the AL most years. Even if one has a down year two of them ALWAYS make it. Back to the yankees specifically, why do they have the right to ask the city of new york for 250 million for the stadium after spending 430 million on free agents. That's like if a friend comes to you saying "I need $1500 for rent because I just spent $2200 on a big screen TV". How would you feel about that. Why are the New York tax payers picking up the tab on the new yankee stadium when the team could CLEARLY afford to do it themselves. Will the city of new york see ONE CENT of the revenue the new stadium brings the yankees? NO, in fact most of the people paying for that stadium won't even get to go because ticket prices are so outrageous. Was Yankee stadium falling apart and thus the team needed a new stadium? NO. I went to several games last year and while it isn't perfect you could definitely still play baseball there. I'm a mets fan, but I'm a baseball fan first. I'd give up Krod and Delgado and other big free agent signings if it meant that all of baseball could compete on even terms. Yankee fans think that as long as they can compete it really doesn't matter what the other teams do. Teams like the Brewers are just training camps to them, just a place for them to scout talent that they'll inevitably buy for themselves. The reason I and so many other fans are losing their love of baseball is because it isn't fair. Just because the yankees play by the rules doesn't make the rules fair. Baseball is a sport that is not fair by design. If there was a cap and a team gives out a bad contract and it ruins their team who's fault is it? IT'S THE TEAM'S FAULT. That's why the teams like the spurs and patriots always compete, they have smart management and know how not to ruin their cap situation, I'm betting Cashman couldn't do that because all he's ever known is buying players from other teams. He just decides how to spend the steinbrenner's money. You give all these reasons for why the yankees are good for baseball, but if you were rooting for the rockies or nationals would you feel the same way? If you only got to watch your team compete once or twice per decade I'm sure you'd be calling for a salary cap too, you only care about what's good for your team and you mask it by saying baseball needs the revenue, well guess what the yankees would make money if they spent 200 million or 20 million, they are the yankees they will always have fans. But hey, why should anybody care about the rest of the league as long as the Yankees and Redsox can have their annual pissing contests?

MelkyNYY

12-25-2008, 05:18 AM

It is 4 AM EST and you clearly show a misunderstanding of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and I refuse to reiterate. You seem to misunderstand the luxury tax, revenue sharing, among many other things. Including how the New Yankee Stadium was paid for. I encourage you to read up on the Yankees Payroll (how they dropped 80 million and are still under their 2008 payroll), funding for the New Stadium, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I encourage you to read about how Steinbrenner created the Yankees business model. it did not start with YES, it started with building a team, even if it meant losing money. George NEVER made money from the Yankees until 2002, when the YES Network launched. He took a hit financially for 30 years because he knew what a positive it would be in the future.

You blame the team way too much. You don't understand that if there was a Salary Cap, it would probably be above 200 million, simply because MLB players are not getting a fair share of revenue, and the salary cap is a measure of total revenue evenly split between the players and the owners. So even if you had a salary cap, the Yankees, surprisingly would be under it.

All you are doing is crying. Crying that the Yankees actually use all their resources to improve the team. You are asking MLB to handicap the Yankees, and not create a Salary Cap or Floor, but just make sure the Yankees don't spend money. That is what you REALLY want. You want the Yankees Owners to pocket cash like mostly every other owner.

If the Yankees pocketed cash, or sat on it, like the investment banks, MLB would fall, just like Wall Street. Capitalism thrives when capital is reinvested. The Yankees do that, so they thrive.

If you want to continue, read up on all the things i mentioned above, because I'm sick and tired of repeating myself constantly.

Boohoo the Yankees follow the rules and instead of pocketing cash they reinvest it in their team. Boohoo how do the Yankees have so much Money. Boohoo the Yankees have YES. It took years to build YES, and ifMLB ever instituted a salary cap all that would happen would be that the Yankees would turn into the Cowboys, and pay INSANE Signing Bonuses. because the Players Association, just like the NFLPA, will demand that Signing Bonuses don't get included in the cap so the players get PAID. And players will go to the Yankees because they will over the largest Bonus.

Not only that, the Yankees would demand that revenue sharing be removed from the sport, like the Cowboys. Because why should we share our revenue when you douchebags got your salary cap. It would be a bigger win-win for the Yankees

1. No more sharing our money
2. No more luxury tax, no more sharing our money
3. A Salary Cap based on revenue, which they would STILL be under
4. 4 Less teams to compete against, as the bottom 4 teams who DEPEND on revenue sharing will probably be forced to leave the league (or be supported by it)

So again, read up on some stuff and try to keep the whining to a minimum.

O and the 430 million dollars sounds big and bad now, but in reality, it was only about 65 million for the upcoming year, and 80 million came off our books. So if math isn't a problem for you, we are UNDER our cap. But of course, add up the contract and get a big number and make it seem worse. Don't mind the fact that another 30 million comes off our payroll next year, and another 20 after that, and another 40 after that, and another 30 after that. Nevermind that. Just 430 million!!

"Baseball is a sport that is not fair by design"

So if Capitalism isn't fair, leave America. The land of opportunity right? Baseball gives EVERY team the opportunity to do what the Yankees do, they just choose (the owners) to get rich themselves.

And again, you complain about the Nationals and teams that compete once or twice every two decades, why should anyone but their fans care? Why don't their fans hold that Front Office accountable like Yankee fans hold their FO accountable? If the Yankees suck, people would not go to the games. If we got a ****** product on the field, we don't pay money to sit in that fancy stadium.

The Marlins are an embarassment, as are the Nationals. Playing in front of 5,000 people. If anything, MLB should institute a FLOOR and demand all teams spend at least 50 million. This is sickening how you view baseball in a way that always makes the Yankees look bad. Look at it the other way.

What is really worse? The Yankees spending the money they make from the Franchise on the team, or the Marlins pocketing the money and getting richer as their franchise dies. Imagine if every team spent like the Yankees? Baseball in America would be like Soccer overseas. It would be a worldwide sport.

But of course, you think one dimensionally. You think the big bad Yankees are bad for baseball when every owner and GM says otherwise (except the Brewers GM who made a horrible deal for CC and is now paying for the fact that he could not resign him). Read around, stop watching ESPN and their New England Bias. Read what the other Owners and GMs are saying.

And you continue to cry about how in the NFL teams get 95% of the revenue, yea well in the NFL players get 59% of that revenue for themsleves. In the Majors, it fluctuates anywhere from 51-55%. When you are talking billions of dollars, that is a HUGE difference. MLB players are paid the LEAST in regards to the total revenue. Meaning, if their ever was a Salary Cap, (again you may not understand how a salary cap number is reached), the Yankees would not be too far off from it.

I am debating against a Salary Cap, not for the Yankees, but for the Sport. Trust me, the Yankees would be fine. The Salary cap would be well over 150 million and probably around 200 million, maybe more the way Baseball is growing. Signing Bonuses would not be included because the NFLPA and the NBAPA both do not include their signing bonuses in their total cap. So the Yankees would still get whomever they wanted.

I debate against it for the sport, I reiterate, The Sport. Without revenue sharing (you're stupid if you think it'll stay around if a salary cap is instituted) teams would die. Understand that 4 teams currently LIVE off revenue sharing.

So you are basically wanting the Yankees to keep all their revenue, grow even larger, and just outbid everyone easier by offering 20 million dollar signing bonuses? Ok. I'm down.

I hope you get your wish, so you could cry for this system again. I would love to just be the Dallas Cowboys, and get whomever I wanted because I sell so many Jerseys. The Yankees franchise would be ridiculously unstoppable. There is a reason Hank Steinbrenner is against revenue sharing, it means MORE money for the Yankees if its gone. And it will be with no Salary Cap.

gcoll

12-25-2008, 05:37 AM

I'm not gonna take the time to read through all of this.

But, a cap doesn't do anything. If the problem you are trying to fix, is the Yankees signing the free agents this year.....a cap really wouldn't stop that.

The Yanks didn't even increase their payroll from last year.

Capitalism thrives when capital is reinvested. The Yankees do that, so they thrive.
If the Yankees love capitalism so much....why are they asking the state for money to build their stadium?

That's the only part of the story that would "irk" me. When I'm really not all that irked about any of it. I've gotten used to the Yankees making huge deals. We [the Red Sox] are lucky that the Dice-K bid was secret. But, the only part of the story that bothers me is that the Yankees dropped all this money on free agents....while simultaneously going to the state of NY to ask for more money for their stadium.

nygiants242

12-25-2008, 05:38 AM

I'm not gonna take the time to read through all of this.

But, a cap doesn't do anything. If the problem you are trying to fix, is the Yankees signing the free agents this year.....a cap really wouldn't stop that.

The Yanks didn't even increase their payroll from last year.

How the hell WOULDNT it stop them from getting all these free agents.. with a cap they couldn't spend over 400 million in one offseason

gcoll

12-25-2008, 05:44 AM

How the hell WOULDNT it stop them from getting all these free agents.. with a cap they couldn't spend over 400 million in one offseason

Depends on where the cap is.

And the cap is per year payroll. You are lumping it all together in the 400 million. That 400 million is over what? 5-8 years?

If they were under the cap last year, they'd be under the cap this year. They haven't increased their payroll.

Now. If the cap was lower than their current payroll....you'd basically what? Force them to cut spending? How? Void contracts? Force them to cut players? What?

nygiants242

12-25-2008, 05:45 AM

But they WOULDNT be under the cap last year

gcoll

12-25-2008, 05:49 AM

But they WOULDNT be under the cap last year

So...what would have been done?

A whole bunch of voided contracts?

Where are you putting the cap? How does one calculate the cap?

nygiants242

12-25-2008, 05:50 AM

Good point, I haven't exactly thought of that yet.. but still something would have to be figured out. I know it won't EVER happen though, and that's a shame.

gcoll

12-25-2008, 05:54 AM

Good point, I haven't exactly thought of that yet.. but still something would have to be figured out. I know it won't EVER happen though, and that's a shame.

Again. A cap wouldn't prevent the Yankees from signing the top 3 free agents, especially if they have a huge amount of money coming off the books.

But why is it a shame? What would a cap do? Is the Yankees spending that much money, preventing other teams from competing? I don't think that it is.

If there was a cap...would Teixeira be in Arizona right now? Or Tampa Bay right now? No. He wouldn't be. He'd just be with one of the other big market teams, if the Yankees were out of the picture due to cap issues. But again. If the cap is a problem....you just go with huge signing bonuses.

nygiants242

12-25-2008, 05:54 AM

Again. A cap wouldn't prevent the Yankees from signing the top 3 free agents, especially if they have a huge amount of money coming off the books.

But why is it a shame? What would a cap do? Is the Yankees spending that much money, preventing other teams from competing? I don't think that it is.

If there was a cap...would Teixeira be in Arizona right now? Or Tampa Bay right now? No. He wouldn't be. He'd just be with one of the other big market teams, if the Yankees were out of the picture due to cap issues.

Yeah I definitely think it DOES keep other teams from competing, any one else agree? Also, who knows he could've very well gone to Washington or Baltimore

Tragedy

12-25-2008, 07:49 AM

I think that's the worst part of it.
:laugh2:

Truth.

nygiants242

12-25-2008, 08:18 AM

:laugh:

Truth.

ricomactaco

12-25-2008, 09:11 AM

First of all the Yankee fans arguing against the salary cap, your arguments ring hollow because your team benefits the most by far so of course you guys would not want to see a salary cap. Secondly, the salary cap should have nothing to do with cost control it should be more about making the sport of baseball more competitive, That was the reasoning for a salary cap in football and in basketball. ( the owners and the union must both agree) There should not be one team with a huge advantage over all other teams. Despite what you say about the Yankees owners having less money than some other owners, the Yankees will always have the biggest market and the biggest return on their investment with all their buisness ventures tied to the team. Nothing wrong with that but other teams don't have the return that the Yankees do on their investment. Some Yankee fans like to forget about the reality of the situation and call anyone who talks about a salary cap "Haters" but could Football (Americas #1 sport) be so wrong with their salary cap! Despite the debate about a salary cap, this season will be interesting to see if anyone can beat Goliath, those damn Yankees! Peace

dan87balla

12-25-2008, 07:43 PM

if a team is willing to pay the luxury tax...who cares

awesomeovie8

12-25-2008, 08:28 PM

With a 50 million floor the Marlins would not exist...it would take another 33 million.

Again, this is an idiotic statement. If we charge less for the product on the field, Baseball as an industry slowly dwindles. Hence the NHL, and even the NBA. Baseball is played in Stadiums, like Soccer. I use Soccer as a prime example because it is one of the only sports that has no salary cap and thrives more than ever (Euro Soccer).

The more money you spend on something the better it will be. Simple. If we start charging less and paying players less, baseball will suffer. Period.

I'm sorry your owner refuses to spend more than 20 million, but that is unfortunate. Complain to the better business Bureau.

Hockey has been on the rise and attendance as been great. Last year they had a higher attendance % then baseball and basketball just for your info.

Drawantz

12-25-2008, 08:31 PM

No baseball fan wants a cap. Only envious people who do not understand Baseball's economic system want a cap. Do you enjoy Citi Field? Do you think the Mets paid for it themselves along with the NY Tax Payers? you don't think revenue sharing had anything to do with it? You don't think the Yankees exposure had anything to do with the growing popularity of baseball and hence all these new stadiums popping up?

Do you know that the bottom 4 teams in the Majors would have to be removed without revenue sharing and with a cap?

Did you know that the Marlins get more than 17 million in revenue sharing and only have a 17 million dollar payroll?

Do you know Steinbrenners aren't even the Top 10 wealthiest owners in baseball? And that any other owner could theoretically outspend them?

Did you know that the NBA and NHL salary caps handicap teams to the point where if they make one mistake, it could deem a franchise irrelevant for YEARS?

Did you know that the MLB has more parity in its winners than the NFL?

Did you know that MLB is the fastest growing Sport in the United State?

Did you know that it is because MLB runs on a capitalist system?

Did you know the NFL teams with more revenue outbid other teams on FA with signing bonuses that aren't capped?

Did you know without a salary cap there would be no revenue sharing, and the Yankees would potentially be even WEALTHIER and be able to just offer large signing bonuses?

Did you know that a Salary Cap would cause player salaries to drop, and probably cause a strike?

Do you know that salary caps in other sports are dependent on the leaugue's revenue in comparison with the number of players in the league? Meaning Players would get paid MORE. They just don't pick a number out of their ***** and say "Hey the cap is 150 million", NO the MLBPA will demand players get a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have, and the cap would be close to 300 million.

It would go something like This

Total Revenue/total number of players a team (25) = average salary per player x 25 = total cap.

Baseballs Revenue was ridiculous this past year. The Salary Cap would be well over 200 million. Or are you one of the fans that thinks the other sports just pick a random number. It is dependent on Revenue, or the MLBPA would not go for it.

Learn your facts, stop the crying.

It isn't about wealth for an owner, it's about how much he can spend while turning a profit. And you know as well as I do the Yankees' ownership makes more money than any other owner even though they have a $200 million payroll. Do you honestly believe that the Yankees are putting a higher % of their revenue back into their team than any other owner. Their ability to spend whatever they want is what allowed them to bring in star after star and become as popular as they are, which is why the gap between the highest and lowest payroll teams keeps widening. And if the MLB's revenue was unified instead of allowing the Yankees to control it all their could be a ridiculous salary cap (while I think your # is pretty high). The more the Yankees spend, the more popular, high profile FA's they can sign. And by signing these FA's, they become more popular and make more money and the gap between low and high payrolls will increase until the low payroll teams can't even draft the players they want and still turn a profit with the ridiculous signing bonuses the high payroll teams will be throwing around. Then what will you have?

MelkyNYY

12-25-2008, 08:34 PM

Hockey has been on the rise and attendance as been great. Last year they had a higher attendance % then baseball and basketball just for your info.

Percentage is a great way to twist stats. When the NHL's largest arena probably holds 20,000 people.

How about this

Only one Franchise in the NHL averaged over 20,000 fans.

Only 2 Franchises in the MLB averaged LESS than 20,000 fans.

MelkyNYY

12-25-2008, 08:35 PM

It isn't about wealth for an owner, it's about how much he can spend while turning a profit. And you know as well as I do the Yankees' ownership makes more money than any other owner even though they have a $200 million payroll. Do you honestly believe that the Yankees are putting a higher % of their revenue back into their team than any other owner. Their ability to spend whatever they want is what allowed them to bring in star after star and become as popular as they are, which is why the gap between the highest and lowest payroll teams keeps widening. And if the MLB's revenue was unified instead of allowing the Yankees to control it all their could be a ridiculous salary cap (while I think your # is pretty high). The more the Yankees spend, the more popular, high profile FA's they can sign. And by signing these FA's, they become more popular and make more money and the gap between low and high payrolls will increase until the low payroll teams can't even draft the players they want and still turn a profit with the ridiculous signing bonuses the high payroll teams will be throwing around. Then what will you have?

I'm done beating a dead horse. I have debated that argument in 10 threads around PSD. All of you can keep hating the big bad Yankees if it makes you sleep better at night.

Drawantz

12-25-2008, 10:44 PM

I'm done beating a dead horse. I have debated that argument in 10 threads around PSD. All of you can keep hating the big bad Yankees if it makes you sleep better at night.

Aww shucks... I was waiting for a witty response. You responded to Awesome Movie 8 because you could easily prove his point invalid, but you won't "beat a dead horse" and respond to me?

Percentage is a great way to twist stats. When the NHL's largest arena probably holds 20,000 people.

How about this

Only one Franchise in the NHL averaged over 20,000 fans.

Only 2 Franchises in the MLB averaged LESS than 20,000 fans.

you a twisting things too. NHL arenas can only hold maybe 20,000-25,000 people when MLB fields can hold 50,000-60,000 people. you can't compare how many people go to the games. It all depends on the capacity.

ciaban

12-26-2008, 02:15 AM

o.k. this is annoying me people bragging about how Boston has a 600K population and is a model franchise for being able to spend like they do. Massachusetts as a state is small and densely populated it has 6.5 million people and they have most of New England rooting for them that's over 14 million people most of that population residing fairly close to Boston so they are within driving distance they are good because they used good player evaluation when drafting/trading/signing F.A. also they got really lucky with Big Papi doing what he has done.

Bill1810

12-26-2008, 02:46 AM

All the owners have the money to build winners. Its about HOW much they invest to actually put a winning product on the field. Plus its about the markets and the drafts. Tampa drafted well over the years and went to the World Series. But they play in empty stadiums and don't bring in enough revenue to keep those players,when people in NY pack their stadiums and bring in revenue.Simple economics people!

BILLYBALL

12-26-2008, 03:18 AM

What is this the Soviet Union - how about your boss putting a salary cap on you $300.00 a week take it or leave it. THINK ABOUT IT

WickedBadMan

12-26-2008, 04:52 AM

No one complained about the Yankees when they had the same payroll, but it was just all locked up in players like Giambi. Maybe the same thing will be happening with the players they signed, and naturally no one will mind the payroll then.

A salary cap will never happen with the players association. But, something needs to be done to adjust the luxury tax system in place a bit IMO.

Edit: Russia? Soviet Union maybe :)!

BLOMETSFAN

12-26-2008, 05:47 AM

Why is it that everyone hates on the Yankees for spending money, but no one hates on the Marlins for having a payroll that is about equal to the amount of money they receive from the Yankees in luxury tax? I know that the Marlins dont draw well, but you cannot tell me that the owners down there cant even invest a little more into their team. You cannot have a cap if you dont have a bottom. And the 400 and some odd million is spread out, and like the yankee fans are saying on here over and over again, they are below their payroll from last year so they just made a choice for quality over quantity this year.

Percentage is a great way to twist stats. When the NHL's largest arena probably holds 20,000 people.

How about this

Only one Franchise in the NHL averaged over 20,000 fans.

Only 2 Franchises in the MLB averaged LESS than 20,000 fans.

twisting stats? Ha your rediculous, you used a sport that has ball parks that hold 50,000+ and have 81 home games. If you compare it you have to use average attendance percentage. And notice you did not comapre the nba, which has fallen hard. Prime example is something we covered in my sports marketing class, when the flyers sucjed they still sold out many games, now that the sixers are below average they cant give away tickets. Hockey fans are more loyal to teams.

baseball4ever

12-26-2008, 07:53 AM

Suppose the owner for YOUR team had the bucks the Yankees do? Would you object if that owner spent the money? of course not! No one can deny that Steinbrenner does'nt love his team.

At least he puts his $$ where his mouth his.

Unlike owners like John Moores (Padres) who promised to increase payroll if he got his new stadium only to reneg on that promise. The Yanks did the reverse.

For those unfamiliar with the history of the yankees. The Yanks have had the reputation of being big spenders going back to the days when Col. Rupert owned the team and Babe Ruth brought in the $$ to enable the team to build Yankee Stadium. The point? The N.Y.Y. have ALWAYS been controversial when it comes to payroll and big name players.

My favorite yankee story is about Ruth when he signed for 100 grand back in '29. (What would that be in today's dollars. Anyway Ruth was asked how he could justify making more money than the president of the u.s.

Ruth's response? "I had a better year than he did." hahahahah

(BTW, I'm not even a yankee fan but facts are facts and honesty is honesty.

In the 1980's the Yanks outspent everyone and didn't come home with one world series ring. It's not the money spent but whther or not the players gel into one unit and have harmony in the clubhouse.

baseball4ever

12-26-2008, 07:57 AM

Oh yeah, salary cap in MLB. The players union will never allow it just as they will never get rid of the D.H. As far as that goes, the D.H. is about to enter into its' 36th season. It's not going anywhere. The only fans who ***** about it is N.L. fans; like they have to deal with it?

BLOMETSFAN

12-26-2008, 09:04 AM

Oh yeah, salary cap in MLB. The players union will never allow it just as they will never get rid of the D.H. As far as that goes, the D.H. is about to enter into its' 36th season. It's not going anywhere. The only fans who ***** about it is N.L. fans; like they have to deal with it?

NL fans complain about the DH because in most cases it add a potential disadvantage if their team makes it to the world series. When the teams match up, the AL team has a guy that is an above average hitter whose main goal is to hit, the NL team has to pull a guy off the bench most times and that player is usually no where near the caliber hitter as a full time DH. I personally dont care whether or not the DH stays or goes, but I would like to see it in both leagues or not at all.

BILLYBALL

12-26-2008, 09:50 PM

Yeah, A $170mm offer from the Boston Choke Sox is fair play, but a $180mm offer from the YANKEES is the end of decency as we know it. Right - SO KEEP WHINNING RED SOX FANS

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 12:30 AM

Baseball is not a big enough sport for all of the owners to open up the bank vault and dump the money. Until there is a cap, it will be the same teams competing every year, with one or two teams rotating in/out of the playoffs due to a good season.

No cap=Bad baseball. It is getting ridiculous.

I've tried to articulate this several times on the board here, and you've done it very well here.

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 12:34 AM

Why is it that everyone hates on the Yankees for spending money, but no one hates on the Marlins for having a payroll that is about equal to the amount of money they receive from the Yankees in luxury tax? I know that the Marlins dont draw well, but you cannot tell me that the owners down there cant even invest a little more into their team. You cannot have a cap if you dont have a bottom. And the 400 and some odd million is spread out, and like the yankee fans are saying on here over and over again, they are below their payroll from last year so they just made a choice for quality over quantity this year.

I think the Marlins are just as at fault, which is why there needs to be a minimum and maximum salary range to protect the fans. Screw owenership's perspective or "fairness." Make it fair for the fans.

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 12:37 AM

But, a cap doesn't do anything. If the problem you are trying to fix, is the Yankees signing the free agents this year.....a cap really wouldn't stop that.

Tell that to the NFL. If you think baseball is as fun to watch as the NFL is year-in, year-out, you're dellusional. My small market Bills are in play for every single free agent and can sign whoever they draft this offseason. That is truly entertaining, and when the Patriots dominate us every year, they're doing it because they're actually better, not because they spend way more than us.

WillRain

12-27-2008, 03:33 AM

For those unfamiliar with the history of the yankees.

That is, the three of you who've been in a coma since you were pre-schoolers and that guy in the back recently rescued from havingbeen raised by wolves...

;)

In the 1980's the Yanks outspent everyone and didn't come home with one world series ring. It's not the money spent but whther or not the players gel into one unit and have harmony in the clubhouse.

Point of order: the USA Today database only goes back to 1988 but I think it gives us a fair idea. The Yanks let the majors in payroll in 1988 and not again until 1994. but in 1988, the difference between the Yanks and the fifth ranked Dodgers was $3.5 million.

In 1994 the spread between the Yankees and the fifth ranked Giants was about $4.7 million

In 1996 the spread was over $10 million

In 1999 it was over $16 million (still, twice between 1994 and 1999 someone other than NY had been #1)

In 2001 it was over $20 million
In 2002 it was over $30 million
In 2003 it was almost $50 million
In 2004 the difference in the first place Yanks and fifth place Phillies was over $90 million dollars - almost twice the Phillies payroll.

In 2005 it was over $113 million

In the last few years the gap has closed a bit but it's still close to $90 million.

I'm not necessarily taking a side on the Yankees spending - I see the argument that other teams should be spending more and I assuredly see the argument for greater revenue sharing...

BUT

citing the fact that they were slightly ahead in the 80s is as useless a bit of information as there is in this discussion.

What's happened with the Yankees as opposed to the rest of the league in this last decade is not comparable to any other era in major league history.

WillRain

12-27-2008, 03:35 AM

No one complained about the Yankees when they had the same payroll, but it was just all locked up in players like Giambi.
You should get out more.

WillRain

12-27-2008, 03:53 AM

Some baseball teams need a new business plan. The fact that the Dodgers aren't second in payroll is sickening. Afterall, they're a huge city, almost as big as NY and hypothetically only have one team (Angels are still in Anaheim no matter what their name says) in their city. Teams like the Marlins are a huge epic fail in a city like Miami. I'm not saying they should be a huge market, but they damn well should be a middle of the pack market with the potential they have going on there. Same with the Blue Jays. They have the potential to draw 4M fans and be close to at least Boston. Yet, where are they. It's unfortunate Rogers died because he understood that.

Boston is the model organization. A city of what? 600K? and they are a huge organization.

Many teams just need better business plans but it's easier blaming it on other teams.

There's some truth to this.

Speaking specifically to the Jays, they have the unique issue of the currency which hurts them...but also, being owned by a media giant, they are victims of the same sort of profit shuffling you see elsewhere in which the teams revenues are minimized by a sweetheart deal for the broadcast arm which, in turn, improves the bottom line of that division.

In essence, they take advantage of the mythology that baseball teams (especially in Canada) lose money to boost the overall cooperation.

The guys at DJF (can't remember what source they were citing) had an article late in the season about the massive amounts of profit Rogers Corp. actually had - it was obscene.

Yet the team is "cooked" to show a marginal economic status and, of course, that cooking suddenly turns sour when the economy turns against them - because the broadcast deal which kept them at a marginal level is locked in.

So, yeah, it's every bit as much the fault of jays ownership as it is of Yankees ownership (in fact, as a right-of-center person politically, I resent them raping the city for the money they spent on the stadium cfar more than I resent their payroll)

But that goes back to my earlier point - I argue that baseball is NOT 30 seperate businesses, it's ONE business in 30 locations. At spending will not be equitable until it's operated on THAT basis.

Tat means equal (relatively speaking) revenues and equal (relatively speaking) spending. With the profitability of baseball in the 21st century, no team should be under $100 million in payroll.

In that sense, it is true that the Yanks are simply doing what everyone SHOULD do....but doing it alone still skews things.

It warps the curve.

That's the fault of the "30 businesses" model

BILLYBALL

12-27-2008, 04:29 AM

The New York Yankees - who have kept franchises like the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays afloat since the dawn of the luxury tax. Teams like the envious Brewers and Marlins need to stop talking about a salary cap and start putting the revenue and profit margin they generate back on the field instead of in their pockets for the fans to enjoy - the same way the Yankees have been doing it for decades.

WillRain

12-27-2008, 04:45 AM

The New York Yankees - who have kept franchises like the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays afloat since the dawn of the luxury tax. Teams like the envious Brewers and Marlins need to stop talking about a salary cap and start putting the revenue and profit margin they generate back on the field instead of in their pockets for the fans to enjoy - the same way the Yankees have been doing it for decades.

It seems to me your points are in conflict - IF in fact teams like the Marlins have been "kept afloat" by the Yankees, then they are not making the profit stream you claim is going in their pockets - conversely if they are funneling money into their pockets the Yankees are not keeping them afloat.

In any case, the whole thing is based on the false premise that the Yankees operate in a vacuum. they don't. Without the other teams that come to town the Yankees will make whatever they can charge for people to watch batting practice and buy their bling.

I'll happily concede the Yankees may have a better business model, but they also have revenue streams other teams simply don't have and THAT creates the imbalance so long as MLB mistakenly allows 30 individual revenue streams.

Should the Marlins, and the Brewers, and the Rays and jays been spending more? Hell yes.

Do you feel a moral obligation to explain the monsterous spending of the Yankees? I don't see how this is any different from the other "cap" threads, really.

WillRain

12-27-2008, 04:57 AM

To my earlier point about the recent skewing of the curve by the Yankees - take a look at this graph.

That's the Yankees' payroll in green (which, btw, is not always #1 on this chart) and the numbers 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 teams in baseball in any given year going back to 1988.

notice how salary inflation tracks roughly together until 2001 (the year of the last Yankees championship, IIRC) and then look how the green line spikes away from the others since then.

http://www.wordforge.net/imagehosting/904955ed5c0d7f4.jpg

THAT phenomena is what's got everyone's knickers in a bunch. the Yankees won 27 championships without ever having to do that before - why do they have to do it now?

This isn't about buying championships in the '90's...they didn't...nor is it about wasting a lot of money in the 80's ...they didn't (any more than other teams...and it's not about what they paid Mantle or Ruth.

It's about the last seven years...eight now as we look ahead to 2009. What they are doing now is not what they did before. It's almost certainly a result of the profit stream from the YES network and that new stadium will only make it worse.

So, really, it's not about a "better business model" after all (unless you want to argue you could set up the equivilant to the YES network in Milwaukee or Houston)

It's about something that has clearly skewed the payroll structure which the league needs to get a handle on.

I, for one, don't want the Yankees artificially capped (and the union would never allow it) - rather, I want revenue sharing that MUST be spent on the team which creates a "floor" which the Union would most certainly be in favor of. Of course, that money will come almost entirely from the Yankees...but I'm fine with that.

BILLYBALL

12-27-2008, 05:42 AM

Baseball is a busines - You can't make money it's time to close down go out of business. Just another form of welfare.

RISE UP

12-27-2008, 06:04 AM

Forget the cap the real question is who re-invests the largest percentage of their profits & who are the tight a$$es?

Would you want to work for a company that spends only 15-40% of it's profits on it's employees?

ccugrad1

12-27-2008, 12:44 PM

Let's look at baseball as things are today, and examine somethings that are a proven fact as to determine how MLB has changed; And I do not pick on any one team in particular:

1) A #3 starter in today's MLB is a 10-12 million investment. How else do we explain guys like Jeff Suppan, Gil Meche, Javier Vazquez, and Ted Lilly, guys who I would consider #3 starters getting the contracts that they got?

2) You have gotten to the stage where guys who, most of the time, pitch one inning, closers, getting contracts between 12 and 15 million a season. The Red Sox need not put a contract ANY LESS than 3 years, 15 million per season, on the table to re-sign Jonathan Papelbon. It is a proven fact.

3) Any "ace" in today's MLB Free Agency STARTS at Barry Zito's 7 year, 126 million dollar deal and one can argue that it has now become a 20-22+ million a year investment. Jake Peavy, if we can say this, is UNDERPAID at approximately 15 million per season. What kind of hope does that give "small market" teams trying to keep an ace?

4) People say too much about about Tampa making the World Series like they show people that you can truly do something with a small payroll. How many of these guys would be on the Rays if they were paid "TRUE MARKET VALUE?" Shields and Kazmir you START at Gil Meche's contract; BJ Upton STARTS at 80-100+ million over 6 or 7 years; Evan Longoria you can put him in the David Wright 6 year, 55 million range. I said the same thing with the Marlins of 03; if they are paid "TRUE MARKET VALUE," 3/4 of that team is nowhere to be found.

So what does a lot of this mean? Well, even with a minimum, are teams that are at the minimum still going to be able to keep key players? I am not sure even then you would, especially when you consider today's figures in MLB. In part, that is why I never understood the Matt Holliday trade. Does anyone honestly believe we will be an Oakland Athletic on opening day of 2010?

I doubt it. Scott Boras will just wait until the end of the 2009 season and throw out a 8 year, 170-180 million figure. I mean why not, he hits over .300 with 30-35 HR's and drives in over 100 runs. If Andruw Jones can get 18 million, Holliday will get 22-25. And who is to say that in 2 years when Pujols has an opt out clause, could we see baseball's first 30 million a year man? Tell me even with a minimum floor of 60 or 70 million that the Marlins, Pirates, and teams like that will even be anywhere near the running and how that improves anything? You could knock it down to may 3 or 4 teams and we all know who they are.

At least in football there are things in place where what players you go after is dependant on how smart you are with the money that you are able to spend. In baseball, all a certain few teams have to do is throw exorbent amounts of money at someone and there is nothing in place to punish them for possible bad decisions.

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 01:51 PM

Would you want to work for a company that spends only 15-40% of it's profits on it's employees?

Revenue =/= profits. That's the problem with your argument. Also, I wonder how much of the Marlins revenue is spent on vendors, security guards, front office personnel and maintenance.

ruckus16969

12-27-2008, 02:36 PM

Yeah, A $170mm offer from the Boston Choke Sox is fair play, but a $180mm offer from the YANKEES is the end of decency as we know it. Right - SO KEEP WHINNING RED SOX FANS

That is not what people are saying.. what they are saying is that the Yanks already have a-rod-jeter-cc-burnett among other's.... They bought themselfs an all-star team. They team they have right now could beat the NL all-star teams from the past 4 years...

I think that a sallary cap is BS. But there should be tougher restsrictions on how many class A players a team has.

ruckus16969

12-27-2008, 02:38 PM

But then if a team that has a great farm system devolopes to many great players at one time that would not work so IDK...

CubsGirl

12-27-2008, 02:40 PM

I'm not sure I like the idea of a salary cap, but I think there should definitely be a salary floor, and some sort of a system in place organizing how teams must spend their money from revenue sharing.

LeoGetz

12-27-2008, 02:42 PM

I'm not sure I like the idea of a salary cap, but I think there should definitely be a salary floor, and some sort of a system in place organizing how teams must spend their money from revenue sharing.

I second that, maybe even contract 2 teams :nod:

jscotty8

12-27-2008, 03:16 PM

why salary cap? yankees been spending big money for years and they havent won since 2000, a stacked team doesnt always win

When it comes to the salary cap issue... This is always the dumbest thing said. How long has it been sense the Royals won a WS. You have to do better than this.

jscotty8

12-27-2008, 03:19 PM

I think the Marlins are just as at fault, which is why there needs to be a minimum and maximum salary range to protect the fans. Screw owenership's perspective or "fairness." Make it fair for the fans.

I couldn't agree more..

donnie23

12-27-2008, 03:58 PM

Some of these mid-markets could spend more money which would drive more revenue increase their fan base and create new opprtunities like a tv network. The Twins should have kept Santana, Pohland has 3 times more money than Wilpon the Twins could easily outspend the Tigers.

Drawantz

12-27-2008, 04:40 PM

The New York Yankees - who have kept franchises like the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays afloat since the dawn of the luxury tax. Teams like the envious Brewers and Marlins need to stop talking about a salary cap and start putting the revenue and profit margin they generate back on the field instead of in their pockets for the fans to enjoy - the same way the Yankees have been doing it for decades.

Do you honestly believe that the Steinbrenners put their revenue back into the team? They fill their pockets with more from the Yankees than any other team in the league.

gregd111

12-27-2008, 04:41 PM

Plenty of other U.S. businesses have the same mindset as the Yankees. Look at ENRON, the banking and loans industry, etc.

There is absolutlely nothing, zero, nada, zilch in common with the business aspect or plan of the Yankees owners and Enron.

Enron went under because of insider trading. And stealing millions of dollars from its own employees, and leaving then with no jobs. How is that related whatsoever to the Yankees having a high payroll?

bloodhawk

12-27-2008, 04:49 PM

Do you honestly believe that the Steinbrenners put their revenue back into the team? They fill their pockets with more from the Yankees than any other team in the league.

so where does the 200M dollar+ just on the players come from? They put more revenue out into the league tha naybody else...

MelkyNYY

12-27-2008, 04:56 PM

Do you honestly believe that the Steinbrenners put their revenue back into the team? They fill their pockets with more from the Yankees than any other team in the league.

lol

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 07:45 PM

You know, the problem with blaming owners for their low payrolls is not a very deep argument when you really think about it.

Take, for example, Braves owner John Malone, worth about 2.2 billion. Now, many argue that nobody's telling him not to spend more money. And that's true, except he doesn't actually have 2.2 billion dollars in cash to spend. The majority of his worth is based on assets, particularly stocks in Liberty media. Signing Sabathia at 160 million would be a major commitment, since he doesn't actually have that kind of liquidity to throw around. That one player would represent about 14% of his net worth alone, and who knows how much of his actual liquid cash. In other words, he can't do it without more team revenue.

So, I withdraw what I said about the Marlins ownership. These owners are rich, but not that rich. They can't overcome a low team revenue stream with their personal wealth, at least not to the point that they can match the Yankees' payroll. The Yankees' payroll is so high precisely because they're a big market team and have more revenue; it's not because the Steinbrenners are more generous owners or because other owners are too stingy. That's all bullcrap.

I think you need a hard cap, floor and ceiling, with a system of revenue sharing that allows small market teams to reach the floor.

Revenue sharing alone won't do it, because teams make commitments for years that they can't foresee. So in an off year for MLB with little revenue sharing going around, a small market team could be screwed with the bill for a player they signed three years ago.

YankeeFan28

12-27-2008, 07:55 PM

You know, the problem with blaming owners for their low payrolls is not a very deep argument when you really think about it.

Take, for example, Braves owner John Malone, worth about 2.2 billion. Now, many argue that nobody's telling him not to spend more money. And that's true, except he doesn't actually have 2.2 billion dollars in cash to spend. The majority of his worth is based on assets, particularly stocks in Liberty media. Signing Sabathia at 160 million would be a major commitment, since he doesn't actually have that kind of liquidity to throw around. That one player would represent about 14% of his net worth alone, and who knows how much of his actual liquid cash. In other words, he can't do it without more team revenue.Using owner's net worth isn't really an argument at all. Perhaps people are arguing about the owner not pocketing as much profit from his baseball team and using more revenue on payroll.

So, I withdraw what I said about the Marlins ownership. These owners are rich, but not that rich. They can't overcome a low team revenue stream with their personal wealth, at least not to the point that they can match the Yankees' payroll. The Yankees' payroll is so high precisely because they're a big market team and have more revenue; it's not because the Steinbrenners are more generous owners or because other owners are too stingy. That's all bullcrap.It's bull crap that a team in Miami is one of the worst payroll offenders. They are not in Pittsburgh or Wyoming. They are in a pretty big market. Perhaps their ownership should spend revenue and implement a good marketing plan. There's absolutely no reason why the Marlins are not at least in the top 10 in payroll. The payroll potential is there in cities like Miami, Toronto, LA. Yet it's very easy to blame the Yankees instead of their owns teams inability to capitalize on their market's potential.

The Steinbrenners aren't generous. But they are putting more of their teams revenue back into the team then most teams.

LeoGetz

12-27-2008, 08:06 PM

Do you honestly believe that the Steinbrenners put their revenue back into the team? They fill their pockets with more from the Yankees than any other team in the league.

Huh? They have spent around $900MM on players since late 2007

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 08:16 PM

Using owner's net worth isn't really an argument at all. Perhaps people are arguing about the owner not pocketing as much profit from his baseball team and using more revenue on payroll.

It's bull crap that a team in Miami is one of the worst payroll offenders. They are not in Pittsburgh or Wyoming. They are in a pretty big market. Perhaps their ownership should spend revenue and implement a good marketing plan. There's absolutely no reason why the Marlins are not at least in the top 10 in payroll. The payroll potential is there in cities like Miami, Toronto, LA. Yet it's very easy to blame the Yankees instead of their owns teams inability to capitalize on their market's potential.

The Steinbrenners aren't generous. But they are putting more of their teams revenue back into the team then most teams.

Well obviously there's some owners who are better about it and some that aren't, but in terms of simply saying "these guys are rich enough to spend what the Yankees spend," its not true. And it could never fix itself to the point that owner spending percentages would make the league fair for fans. You have to do something with the system to make it work.

Saying the Yanks put more back into their team also doesn't work, because if you're in a smaller, more fickle market, you need to save more because of the inherent volatility.

Rochesta

12-27-2008, 08:26 PM

^^ And my point in bringning up owner worth is to show that team payroll is almost directly tied to team revenue, which inherently screws small market teams, which makes the league lack credibility. Why can't people understand.

NYYCowboys

12-27-2008, 08:38 PM

i vote for no salary cap ...

hurleyburley

12-27-2008, 09:28 PM

Forget the cap the real question is who re-invests the largest percentage of their profits & who are the tight a$$es?

Would you want to work for a company that spends only 15-40% of it's profits on it's employees?

So for the posters that have used the Jays as an example of stingy owners, they are the fifth best team when it comes to putting revenue back into their players pockets.

The Jays problems is that they play the yankees and the red sox 19 times per season. Besides, the jays, the orioles and the rays, are the only teams in this unique position. The rays managed to make the playoffs this year, but will they compete next year after the richest team, signed the 3 best FA's? I have my doubts.

There needs to be a guaranteed % of revenues from each team that goes towards players salaries. And there needs to be a a total restructuring of the playoff system.

I don't care what the yankees spend, but no team should be allowed to have double the payroll. The red sox are also reaching the limit of what they are going to be able to spend. They already have the highest ticket prices, how are they going to generate any more income?

Whether it is a salary cap or a cap on the differential between teams, MLB is going to be forced to do something.